The problem for conferences like the Big XII and ACC who might actually field national championship contending programs is that you have the Big Ten and PAC walking in near lockstep with each other. Between those two conferences, you get a stubborn bloc who, unfortunately, have a large seat at the table because of footprint and general school size. It's some considerable pull, to be sure. There's no reason the playoff, and I mean a more substantial one than just what we're now getting, couldn't be more comprehensive and larger, but you had the Big Ten practically demanding their +1 model. They got it. They (and the PAC) demanded the Rose Bowl's placement in the structure. They got that, too.

I think the current structure helps to agitate the Big XII's business. The playoff is one that only an undefeated B12 team is going to represent without the CCG or the mascots of a Longhorn or a Sooner. And, not surprisingly, it's conferences like the B1G and PAC who will gain from this small system, as a "solid" champion with thirteen games under their belt will be hard to ignore. Of course, the SEC will probably make matters worse with solid programs jamming the top of the rankings demanding consideration in their own way.

I think, until this shakes up again (and I think it does in about 2-3 years), there is going to be another gasp for air in terms of visibility and access. Those non-majors just on the outside will probably band together to improve their luck, and some of the other majors in less than favorable places will start seeking relief elsewhere. Talking to other conferences and schools, talking to bowls about preferential access, utilization of the third-tier, etc.

I believe five or even six majors will be what we wind up having for the long haul. I think whatever happens to the Big XII or ACC will create a "remainder" that won't be locked out (you'll be seeing flagships on the outside, and there's no chance certain states allow that), as well as maybe other piecemeal'ed conference of non-majors with big-time budgets that can "keep up appearances" but not get that major rub or designation.

One of the problems they will have to contend with is that colleges and universities change, sometimes in short time, in size, funding, resources, academic profiles, and athletic success. While the NFL is a set body of all-inclusive teams all operating under the same and distinct criteria, the spectrum of college sports differs.

If the "chosen" is to be based on conference membership alone, it's a recipe for even greater turmoil. If schools such as Cincinnati, BYU, UConn, UCF, Boise State, Houston, etc., significantly out-shine a host of schools that are members of the P5, what does the system do to address that? Expanding the number of playoff games does not resolve that unless access also becomes more accommodating. There's a number of private schools in the P5 particularly, that are going to feel the pressure. Can certain private schools in the P5 with, give or take, 10,000 or less undergraduate students sustain their placement, while newer mega-campus institutions are knocking on doors? Some schools are relying on academic standards to help them stay in the game, but if the school is not a marketable ace such as a flagship of a sizable state, can that school be eventually seen as more disposal or the financial pressures pile-up even higher? I don't want to see the point where conferences force away members to make room for newbies with bigger assets. On the other hand, I don't want the system to destroy reasonable upward mobility opportunities for schools outside the current P5.

If new criteria is set on factors such as stadium sizes/facilities, attendance figures, demographics, and budgets and such; they have to keep in mind these potential determinants are constantly changing, though there are going to be a big majority of power schools residing comfortably at the top for the long haul. And as is known, using attendance figures to determine who gets to stay in division 1 has not worked so well in the past. Also, having already a "have" status is a big advantage over a school already placed right below the margin. Just being labeled second-class is going to retard fan enthusiasm.

Regarding the B12, they certainly can stay in the P5 mix long-term. I do agree, the playoff selection committee could be dismissive of a one-loss B12 champion in comparison to one that won a CCG in another major conference. And politics will always impact this to some degree, and a name such as Texas or Oklahoma could carry more weight. They will claim objectivity, but lobbying and influence will not go away.

If the desire is a 4 conference champions representation, one is going to be left out among the P5. But as TBC noted, one conference could have more than one team ranked in the top four. Just wait when a one or two loss Notre Dame gets placed along with the ACC champion; and a B1G, or SEC, or PAC12 Champion gets left out; some big-time anger is going to unfold.

If the B12 needs to add a couple or so to have the CCG based on numbers, they could do so. The pickings may be relatively slim and the best ones are far-flung, but it's doable. I don't buy that they are destined to stay behind the ACC in fb. Beyond Oklahoma and Texas, there are still three or four very good programs in the B12.

I think eventually it's going to end up with a real super division with only the elite athletic schools.

Schools like WSU, Cal, Baylor, ISU, MSU, Vandy, Indiana, Northwestern, Wake Forest and many many more will be left behind as the elites like USC, UT, OU, LSU, Bama, UF, UM, tOSU, PSU, and ND all decide to team up and select a few of the more accomplished peers to create a new super elite division for fb/bb and only leave their non-profit sports in the NCAA.

It could happen faster depending on how the Obannon thing goes down but still I'm betting it'll be 30+ years from now.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

I'm with tkalmus. The big 12 is still unstable and will remain that way. They will always be the weak member in the Power 5. Texas and Oklahoma have to be able to be at the same revenue level as the the other college blue bloods. The LHN will float the longhorns but what about the sooners? Oklahoma would be wise to force the PAC 16 issue by making overtures to the SEC. This would kill the Big 12 tv deal might cause Texas to consider going west with Oklahoma and along with Tech and State--that would be far more favorable than going to the SEC without their rivals.I hardly think that the power 5 will stay at 5 forever.

fighting muskie,As a Big Ten and Nebraska fan, should you not be more worried about the lack of football success by the Big Ten compared to the future health of the Big 12.

Most medial groups have the Big Ten ranked consistently at the bottom of the Power 5 leagues. Obviously Nebraska has not done much to help with the image of Big Ten football since joining which leads me to compare recent expansion candidates based on football performance during the BCS era.

According to most of these same media outlets, both WVU and TCU ranked near the bottom of the Big 12. If we examine further statics, TCU and WVU have more BCS wins combined compared to recent SEC expansion of Texas A&M, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas. You can add Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland to list and TCU and WVU have more BCS wins that all those combined.

It leads me to believe Nebraska had much to do with the wows of the all Big 12 with North and South divisions. Nebraska simply did not hold up its end or division and moving to the weaker Big Ten football is just more proof.

I have much more faith in the stability of Big 12 football compared to the weaker Big Ten unless the Big Ten turns things around in football.

College football playoff is going to expose more frauds in football strength and maybe that is why both Nebraska and the Big Ten pushed so hard for a plus one system.

Maybe your reflections of the Big 12 has a lot to do with the concerns of Nebraska's move to the much perceived weaker Big Ten conference which has not helped Nebraska get over that football slump that begin in the Big 12 and continues in the Big Ten.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of this forum is to discuss conference realignment so I think discussing the membership instability of the Big 12 is a valid topic. Yes, the Big Ten has had a rough decade. Ohio St has had to do all the heavy lifting during the BCS era. I don't think the Big Ten has to fear defections because the conference will continue to remain a financial juggernaut even if they aren't winning national titles--the league covers far many valuable tv markets to become irrelevant. I'm not sure why you are so confident that the Big 12 will stand the test of time---they have have lost 4 members (Big Ten has lost 0, Pac 12 0, SEC 0, ACC 1), the league only possesses 2 national brands, at 10 members they offer the least inventory for their television partners of any major conference. I expect the Big 12 to fall apart in 6 years.

fighting muskie, I tend to look at situations objectively where most or a lot of folks that post on this board including yourself do not. I actually do not care if the Big 12 or for that matter the Big Ten survive in the future.. That is not the point if you are looking at the facts.

Your first point of the Big 12 breaking up in 6 years is just not based on facts. The Big 12 Grant of Rights (GOR) are not up until 2014-2015 so at the earliest the Big 12 could resolve in your scenario is a decade away. Every one can argue about the challenges to the GOR legally, however, the challenges to GOR are much more different compared to exit fees. While we are on the subject of GORs, Texas and Oklahoma sighed the GOR to protect themselves and to keep the so called little guys from bolting to another league (i.e. Nebraska to the Big Ten). The Texas and Oklahoma's are the world are not looking to leave the Big 12 by sighing the GORs. This Fact indicates they want to be in this league.

The Big Ten has not lost any members because of GORs. Why does the Big Ten need a GOR if everyone is content? The fact is GOR are needed to ensure protection to major investments for long term stability.

If we look at the facts of conferences losing membership, first you have to look at what facts caused the school to leave and what measures were put in place to correct the issue.

The SEC and Pac 12 lost membership in the past so does that mean either have instability issues?

The Big East on the other hand lost membership in 2003 and did very little to nothing to prevent further schools from bolting to another league.

The issues that caused membership to leave the original Big 12 have apparently been corrected and GOR were facts of the insurance of this issue being resolved.

If Nebraska had not left for the Big Ten due to issues of football performance in the old North Division and the creation of Texas LHN, Colorado and Missouri would not have left as well. Not sure about Texas A&M?

Regardless the facts demonstrate that the Big 12 has got rid of the old issues and divisions that caused many of those issues and stabilized into a solid league for the future.

Along with the signing of the ACC GORs each of the Power 5 Leagues have stabilized for future. I would be very shocked if the SEC with the launch of the SEC Network does not have some form of GORs. Legally the SEC would be foolish if they were not protecting a major investment.

So the new issue facing college football conferences is performance in the new playoff format. This is going to be a critical factor in how well a conference is perceived by the fans and public over the next decade. The old BCS system favored large fan bases and the Big Ten was a benefit of this system. The new playoff will favor strength of schedule (SOS).

Within the next five to ten years we should be learning very quickly which of these power leagues are more stable and comfortable in this new college football playoff system. Based on this fact alone and past BCS performance, my bet is on the Big 12 faring better compared to bloated Big Ten.

The SEC and Pac 12 lost membership in the past so does that mean either have instability issues?

The Big East on the other hand lost membership in 2003 and did very little to nothing to prevent further schools from bolting to another league.

The issues that caused membership to leave the original Big 12 have apparently been corrected and GOR were facts of the insurance of this issue being resolved.

Considering two schools pretty much tabled an agreement with the Big Ten and left ten others out to hang, potentially just because of a game with Notre Dame, I don't know if the PAC is rock solid. I don't think *any* conference is rock solid. The Big Ten could actually lose Northwestern because of the unionization thing. The SEC could lose schools depending on their philosophy of player compensation. You and I don't know what's ahead, including the overall viability and popularity of college football (I don't believe it's sustainable). I don't know what happens in the PAC...someone asks to join the Big Ten? Unionization? Dump Utah if it means getting better schools? I don't know.

It was no different with the Big East. When you look at that core, you had Pitt, who was a potential Big Ten candidate back in the day, Miami, who's AD chased the ACC leadership to AZ for membership consideration, and a general philosophy among many of its members, football and non-football, who saw the conference as a northern extension of the ACC. Did it stand to reason that those schools always wanted to be in the ACC and that the conference only happened because the ACC didn't feel the need to expand to the extent in which and when it did?

GoR's, even those signed by the Big XII and ACC, have outs. They may not be practical or likely in utilization, but they aren't the impenetrable fortresses we want to think they are. What happens if the cable industry changes in the next couple of years, and interest in college athletics dip, and networks have to reevaluate their deals with these conferences? After all, since they do have the ability to adjust these deals, assumed favorably but not guaranteed, what happens if someone like ESPN does tell the ACC they won't see an increase during their next window, or a network? What happens if networks go to the Big XII during their next look-in and say "you can't make this conference's kind of money because you don't have the content or reach?" The B12's GoR, like the ACC's, is tied to a media deal. If the media deal doesn't follow the favorable course, what happens to the integrity of the GoR?

Like you, I don't ultimately care what happens. I just don't believe the hype of the structural and legal integrity of these agreements. I do believe, though, that the incentive to challenge one has to be there. I don't see many, if any, willing to actually challenge one. Yet.

lash--Bear in mind that objectivity is a matter of opinion and perspective. I try to look at expansion scenarios from all angles. There is a decent argument out there that the Big 12 is one big happy family and that Texas and Oklahoma are content with their revenue and television exposure and playoff access. However, there is a stronger argument for the idea that the lack of a CCG could hurt their playoff access and the size and lack of other marquee programs in the Big 12 will cause the league to lag in revenue behind the other Power conferences. I think you blame Nebraska for all of the league's misfortunes when in actuality the egos of several programs were the source of internal strife in the league--Nebraska was just the fortuitous benefactor who received the first opportunity to go to a greener pasture where conference members were treated in a more egalitarian manner. I'm not even a Cornhusker fan so I'm not sure why your vitriol is directed towards me. The whole idea of this board is to discuss possible conference realignment scenarios and it needs to be conducted in a manner that is respectful.

In the sprit of being objective and willing to accept new ideas and stand corrected, what does this article have to do with the discussion of how stable the new Big 12 compares to the Big Ten and the other P5 leagues. My comment on being objective, was based on the many comments on this board and how many are not being objective on comparing the new Big 12 stability to the other Power 5 leagues. I am all ears and will stand corrected if this article has anything to with the stability of the new Big 12. Help me out here!

The article would actually convince me the Big 12 is more stable that ever and why would another conference want to take on the baggage of the U of Texas. It most likely has a lot to do with why the Pac 16 idea failed. With Texas appearing to be in the conference that will put up with its demands, the Big 12 is not going anywhere for the long term future would be what this article is implying.

lash--Bear in mind that objectivity is a matter of opinion and perspective. I try to look at expansion scenarios from all angles. There is a decent argument out there that the Big 12 is one big happy family and that Texas and Oklahoma are content with their revenue and television exposure and playoff access. However, there is a stronger argument for the idea that the lack of a CCG could hurt their playoff access and the size and lack of other marquee programs in the Big 12 will cause the league to lag in revenue behind the other Power conferences. I think you blame Nebraska for all of the league's misfortunes when in actuality the egos of several programs were the source of internal strife in the league--Nebraska was just the fortuitous benefactor who received the first opportunity to go to a greener pasture where conference members were treated in a more egalitarian manner. I'm not even a Cornhusker fan so I'm not sure why your vitriol is directed towards me. The whole idea of this board is to discuss possible conference realignment scenarios and it needs to be conducted in a manner that is respectful.

fighting muskie, apologies for making assumption as I have not been a regular on this board and should take more time to review material.

I do agree that objectives are very imbedded with opinions. Where possible we should try to use as many facts as possible along with opinions to help further convince or prove our points.

So less start out with the revenue point you are making. I would agree if the revenue divide becomes very big between leagues would cause many instability issues. We only have to look at what happened in the Big East for historic examples. Until this is proven to be a factor within the Big12, this is not a current issue.

Forbes Magazine which is prides it magazine on discussions about money and wealth have the Big 12 schools making the most money at the moment of all the power leagues. We can all speculate, however, most sports financial experts that I have read or articles, do not have any type of prediction the Big 12 will slip that far behind in the future.

I am guessing most believe these conference networks will make all that revenue and until the actual revenue is there, I am just not convinced the divide will be that great between each of the five power leagues to make that much of a difference. The Big Ten has many years for its network to be in place and divide is not that big of a difference to be a concern.

The area that I would be of most concern for the Big 12 or any of the Power leagues is not placing a good product on the field when the new TV contracts are up for renewal of Tier 1 and Tier 2 sports.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 sports which for the most part never will hit the conference networks or individual school networks in the case of the Big 12 schools, are the area where the real money is made. Should this divide occur in any of the power leagues there would be much to be concerned on future stability.

Just reviewing all the investments the Big 12 schools are placing into football facilities and other areas of their sports programs, I do not at the moment have any reason to believe the Big 12 will not continue to be a major player for the long term in college big time sports.

The SEC and Pac 12 lost membership in the past so does that mean either have instability issues?

The Big East on the other hand lost membership in 2003 and did very little to nothing to prevent further schools from bolting to another league.

The issues that caused membership to leave the original Big 12 have apparently been corrected and GOR were facts of the insurance of this issue being resolved.

Considering two schools pretty much tabled an agreement with the Big Ten and left ten others out to hang, potentially just because of a game with Notre Dame, I don't know if the PAC is rock solid. I don't think *any* conference is rock solid. The Big Ten could actually lose Northwestern because of the unionization thing. The SEC could lose schools depending on their philosophy of player compensation. You and I don't know what's ahead, including the overall viability and popularity of college football (I don't believe it's sustainable). I don't know what happens in the PAC...someone asks to join the Big Ten? Unionization? Dump Utah if it means getting better schools? I don't know.

It was no different with the Big East. When you look at that core, you had Pitt, who was a potential Big Ten candidate back in the day, Miami, who's AD chased the ACC leadership to AZ for membership consideration, and a general philosophy among many of its members, football and non-football, who saw the conference as a northern extension of the ACC. Did it stand to reason that those schools always wanted to be in the ACC and that the conference only happened because the ACC didn't feel the need to expand to the extent in which and when it did?

GoR's, even those signed by the Big XII and ACC, have outs. They may not be practical or likely in utilization, but they aren't the impenetrable fortresses we want to think they are. What happens if the cable industry changes in the next couple of years, and interest in college athletics dip, and networks have to reevaluate their deals with these conferences? After all, since they do have the ability to adjust these deals, assumed favorably but not guaranteed, what happens if someone like ESPN does tell the ACC they won't see an increase during their next window, or a network? What happens if networks go to the Big XII during their next look-in and say "you can't make this conference's kind of money because you don't have the content or reach?" The B12's GoR, like the ACC's, is tied to a media deal. If the media deal doesn't follow the favorable course, what happens to the integrity of the GoR?

Like you, I don't ultimately care what happens. I just don't believe the hype of the structural and legal integrity of these agreements. I do believe, though, that the incentive to challenge one has to be there. I don't see many, if any, willing to actually challenge one. Yet.

The Bishin Cutter, it has been my intent to respond to a couple of your post and do not log on as regular as the past.

I was never confident on the benefits of exit fees and notice of lead time preventing a school from leaving for another conference because the legal fight was always going to be between the school and the conference the school were leaving.

GORs have far more legal issues and tangles which impact the conference the school is actually leaving against the conference the school would potentially be moving into and all the associations of that conference primary the TV networks deals with that particular conference. The TV networks are particularly concerned with rights they own and specifically make statement after each televise game that no rebroadcast of a game may occur without the written consent of that network. This is legal statement after each game. If for example Maryland had left for the Big Ten after signing of ACC/GOR, the Big Ten or ABC/ESPN or any other network would not try to televise any future Maryland home sports games until the GOR expired with the ACC. This would having nothing to do with the actual school of Maryland and more to do with ESPN or BTN having ownership to televise that game. The ACC could put a lien on the BTN or bring a law suite against ESPN for example if those leagues would televise a Maryland home game on their networks with out the written permission of the ACC which own the ownership rights.

I just can't see ESPN, ABC, CBS, Fox, or any other network taking a chance on any type of legal issues unless they specifically have the rights to televise those games. With that said, I can not see a school such as Maryland forfeiting the ability to have any future games televise until the GOR have ended. This would be devastating to a school to not have the TV exposure for the next decade.

Another issue facing GOR is the ownership of the actual revenue. This money is provided by the network to the raiding conference and providing that revenue to Maryland could be tied up courts for years. Unlike exit fees that are being paid by the departing school, the revenue in question would be paid by the networks to the raiding conference and could be subjected to liens and other legal ploys.

It just to messing to think about the consequences and would be a lawyers dream to have this situation occur. Lawyers would be the only benefit to this type of a challenge in the court systems would be my thoughts.

Another issues we can discuss a latter time is the USA Today article on Friday of dwindling attendance by college students during game time and future impacts to college revenue producing sports. Is this trend just todays kids not wanting to attend a game in person or is the issue more problematic due to networks having all this games on TV? This could be a good future topic to discuss. I always thought the big attendance schools such as Penn State would have a slight benefit in autonomy. This has to be concerning for the major college programs in general if attendance by the students continue to decline. Hopefully the college commissioners working to get all the TV contracts and network payoffs have not shoot themselves in the foot by short term gains and longer term mistakes!

I think it depends on what is meant by "autonomy." It's different to schools in the Big XII to the Big Ten. One's more program-centered, and the other is "big brother" conference-minded. To an extent, I think that identity matter is kind of what's holding up this whole futuristic super breakaway faction thing. It's about individual identity. Conferences like the Big Ten and PAC are nowhere near as liberal or flexible as others are, and certain institutions are well aware of that, even if the perceived (and actual) financial benefit is there.

As to the legality of the GoRs, or just the overall integrity, it's kind of like building a house. No foundation or support, no structure. These GoRs are encapsulating/constrictive because of one reason: media access. Change the face of the media structure, be it a simple contract like the Big XII and ACC has, to the overall cable model that keeps schools like the PAC, B1G, and SEC "bound," and the GoRs are open season for dissection. As of now, there is no way a school is going to really take it to their conference. But, that can change during a look-in window, a shift in perspective for network needs (RIP LHN?), or even viability or sustainability (just how is the PAC TV network doing? It doesn't sound too good).

I think it depends on what is meant by "autonomy." It's different to schools in the Big XII to the Big Ten. One's more program-centered, and the other is "big brother" conference-minded. To an extent, I think that identity matter is kind of what's holding up this whole futuristic super breakaway faction thing. It's about individual identity. Conferences like the Big Ten and PAC are nowhere near as liberal or flexible as others are, and certain institutions are well aware of that, even if the perceived (and actual) financial benefit is there.

As to the legality of the GoRs, or just the overall integrity, it's kind of like building a house. No foundation or support, no structure. These GoRs are encapsulating/constrictive because of one reason: media access. Change the face of the media structure, be it a simple contract like the Big XII and ACC has, to the overall cable model that keeps schools like the PAC, B1G, and SEC "bound," and the GoRs are open season for dissection. As of now, there is no way a school is going to really take it to their conference. But, that can change during a look-in window, a shift in perspective for network needs (RIP LHN?), or even viability or sustainability (just how is the PAC TV network doing? It doesn't sound too good).

The Bashin Cutter, my comment on attendance was not specifically about autonomy as autonomy will be voted on by the 65 power schools and will be consistently governed (i.e. each school could provide up to say 2,000 dollars to each football player as full cost of attendance as an example). The comment had more to do with the impacts that autonomy could cause within a conference such as the Big Ten on subjects such as home attendance to ensure home games do not continue to dwindle at the gate.

Autonomy is an amateur attempt of adding some professionalism benefits to college sports athletes. The NFL has blackouts if the home team is not a sellout in that market . Since attendance can help fund some of the cost of autonomy, will the Big Ten do anything to ensure attendance does not continue to drop by college students per the USA Today article last Friday.

If the fans of the Big Ten are paying additional cable bills to support the BTN, the fans may be thinking we already paid to see a game with our cable bills so why go thru the cost at the gate when I can just watch all Big Ten home games on TV. This is a very big concern I see in college basketball as well which has consistently drop in regular season attendance average over the last few years as all games are on TV.

The other issue may be on how a school such as Indiana would look at autonomy with average of say 50,000 fans when the Michigan and Ohio States of the conference pack in twice the attendance. This could cause some internal resentment if a school such as Indiana has to cut sports to fund football autonomy decisions while the bigger attendance schools of the league can fare better with larger home attendance.

Other than Texas and Oklahoma in the Big 12, the other eight or majority of Big 12 schools appear to have stadiums and home attendance that are more or less equal. The Big Ten appears to have a large group of schools that have very large home football attendance and equally number of schools that have average attendance of college football sports in the 50 to 70 thousand range.

The five power conference or 65 schools need to be very carful on the type of decisions that are made towards autonomy or there could become internal issues in a conference such as the Big Ten which previously appeared to have all schools working in harmony.

Just some random thoughts as we wait for college football season to begin and can put all those conference realignments concerns on the back burner until after the football season when we have nothing much to discuss during the off season.

I think it depends on what is meant by "autonomy." It's different to schools in the Big XII to the Big Ten. One's more program-centered, and the other is "big brother" conference-minded. To an extent, I think that identity matter is kind of what's holding up this whole futuristic super breakaway faction thing. It's about individual identity. Conferences like the Big Ten and PAC are nowhere near as liberal or flexible as others are, and certain institutions are well aware of that, even if the perceived (and actual) financial benefit is there.

As to the legality of the GoRs, or just the overall integrity, it's kind of like building a house. No foundation or support, no structure. These GoRs are encapsulating/constrictive because of one reason: media access. Change the face of the media structure, be it a simple contract like the Big XII and ACC has, to the overall cable model that keeps schools like the PAC, B1G, and SEC "bound," and the GoRs are open season for dissection. As of now, there is no way a school is going to really take it to their conference. But, that can change during a look-in window, a shift in perspective for network needs (RIP LHN?), or even viability or sustainability (just how is the PAC TV network doing? It doesn't sound too good).

The Bashin Cutter, my comment on attendance was not specifically about autonomy as autonomy will be voted on by the 65 power schools and will be consistently governed (i.e. each school could provide up to say 2,000 dollars to each football player as full cost of attendance as an example). The comment had more to do with the impacts that autonomy could cause within a conference such as the Big Ten on subjects such as home attendance to ensure home games do not continue to dwindle at the gate.

Autonomy is an amateur attempt of adding some professionalism benefits to college sports athletes. The NFL has blackouts if the home team is not a sellout in that market . Since attendance can help fund some of the cost of autonomy, will the Big Ten do anything to ensure attendance does not continue to drop by college students per the USA Today article last Friday.

If the fans of the Big Ten are paying additional cable bills to support the BTN, the fans may be thinking we already paid to see a game with our cable bills so why go thru the cost at the gate when I can just watch all Big Ten home games on TV. This is a very big concern I see in college basketball as well which has consistently drop in regular season attendance average over the last few years as all games are on TV.

The other issue may be on how a school such as Indiana would look at autonomy with average of say 50,000 fans when the Michigan and Ohio States of the conference pack in twice the attendance. This could cause some internal resentment if a school such as Indiana has to cut sports to fund football autonomy decisions while the bigger attendance schools of the league can fare better with larger home attendance.

Other than Texas and Oklahoma in the Big 12, the other eight or majority of Big 12 schools appear to have stadiums and home attendance that are more or less equal. The Big Ten appears to have a large group of schools that have very large home football attendance and equally number of schools that have average attendance of college football sports in the 50 to 70 thousand range.

The five power conference or 65 schools need to be very carful on the type of decisions that are made towards autonomy or there could become internal issues in a conference such as the Big Ten which previously appeared to have all schools working in harmony.

Just some random thoughts as we wait for college football season to begin and can put all those conference realignments concerns on the back burner until after the football season when we have nothing much to discuss during the off season.

Well said. If the Texas's, Oklahoma's, USC's, Oregon's, Ohio States's, Michigan's, and the SEC schools keep cranking up the financial investment required to field big time revenue sports schools like your aforementioned Indiana (or Wake or Vandy) could have to drop down as they are unable to keep pace with spending.

In the sprit of being objective and willing to accept new ideas and stand corrected, what does this article have to do with the discussion of how stable the new Big 12 compares to the Big Ten and the other P5 leagues. My comment on being objective, was based on the many comments on this board and how many are not being objective on comparing the new Big 12 stability to the other Power 5 leagues. I am all ears and will stand corrected if this article has anything to with the stability of the new Big 12. Help me out here!

The article would actually convince me the Big 12 is more stable that ever and why would another conference want to take on the baggage of the U of Texas. It most likely has a lot to do with why the Pac 16 idea failed. With Texas appearing to be in the conference that will put up with its demands, the Big 12 is not going anywhere for the long term future would be what this article is implying.

What is your point?

The point was simply to highlight the ridiculous statement that Nebraska (or anyone really) left the Big12 due to the LHN. Nebraska left because it was tired of failing in fb and had fundamental disagreements with the rest of the conference (they lost most votes 11-1) but vilified Texas simply because we beat them in football all but 1 time. That was the main point I was making.

Now as far as Texas appearing in a conference that will put up with its demands...that's revisionist history again. The Big12Network was voted down 11-1 back before the BTN. After which Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas decided to look into creating their own channels. Only Texas succeeded where the others were only able to get added to an existing network. The complaints come from a sense of unfairness and jealously, but as the article clearly points out, schools like KU, OSU, and Neb were pulling in lots of 3rd tier money (which was not shared with the conference) while Texas and OU were not. This helped balance out funds within the conference as prior to 2010 no tier 3 content was allotted to schools and the conference could sell all of your games to ESPN/FOX. This meant that UT/OU had little/no 3rd tier rights to sell therefor they were compensated with a bigger revenue distribution from the main TV deal, while KU/OSU's games were not picked up for broadcast as often so they were able to sell more 3rd tier rights and make extra money on the side which they kept to themselves. If the system had been equal distribution of tier 1/2 without allotted tier 3 games, a school like OSU or TxTech would have made more money off TV than OU/UT did.

People are also overlooking that Texas has been for YEARS, investing/developing its own studio, broadcasting booths, HD wiring and transmitting stations for most of its facilities (fb/bb/vb/soccer/bsb/sb)(they literally dug up the interstate to lay those cables back in 2008) and didn't want to delay its network plans for a B12N or P16N where many of its members were asking for funding and development time to process there upgrades. Then ESPN came in and sweet talked DeLoss telling him they'd get it available on every TV in America with the power of Mickey Mouse and company. That is what saved the Big12 and that is what stopped the P16. It wasn't greed, it was simply ESPN realizing what UT had been working towards for 5+ years and making it happen.

UT's 3rd tier content is available in more houses than the P12N.UT's 3rd tier content is available in more houses than the rest of the Big 12's combined.Yes, its not the BTN, nor the SECN, but its was never projected to be equal to an entire conference.The LHN was simply a way for UT to monetize its 3rd party rights which it was rarely able to.The payout from the LHN (if DirectTV picks it up) could disburse more money to UT than ND receives from its NBCfb contract.

That being said, I think this was just a complex way for UT to judge its value. Now that its value has nearly been realized (pending DirectTV) they can now research their conference options in 2025 with accurate information. If the P12 can sell UT on scrapping the LHN for the P12 network, and illustrate that they will receive more value than they would in the Big12 w/ the LHN, then I see that happening. But the PAC12N has a long way to go before they get there and UT correctly judged that ESPN was a better partner than FOX for rolling out a network. The P12 would just have to maintain UT's value (as they would bring in OU/OSU/TT) but the B1G would have to increase it for UT to be interested. The SEC is the wildcard here, if A&M doesn't fall into obscurity after Johnny Football and they keep getting exposure and recruits then I could see the new coach, AD, President, and Chancellor deciding that a more travel friendly conference with A&M, Arky, LSU, Ole Miss along with OU is better than the status quo, West or Midwest.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum